MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Rai, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of retiral benefits admissible to him by making fixation of his salary in revised pay scale along with arrears with interest and to pay salary during suspension period in accordance with law.
(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was serving as Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) in Block Naugarh, District Chandauli in the year 1997. He retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.1997. While the petitioner was in service, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him on account of which he was placed under suspension. The pay scale of the petitioner was revised in the years 1986 and 1996 but his salary was not fixed in the revised pay scales. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation. On 14.10.1999 the Block Development Officer, Naugarh, District Chandauli wrote a letter to the Block Development Officer, Majhawa, Mirzapur for fixation of salary of the petitioner in the revised pay scale, which was admissible to him from time to time in accordance with law. The petitioner made another representation on 27.3.2001 to the Block Development Officer, Naugarh, District Chandauli for payment of his GPF, revised pay scale, insurance money, gratuity and other retiral benefits admissible to him. All the aforesaid benefits were not paid to him merely on the ground that the disciplinary enquiry was pending against him. It is stated that in the disciplinary proceeding, which was pending against the petitioner, he has been exonerated vide order dated 15.2.2003 except deduction of Rs.54,600/ - from his retiral benefits. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order dated 15.2.2003. The petitioner requested the respondents for making final payment of retiral benefits after deducting an amount of Rs.54,600/ -. Again on 22.8.2003 the petitioner made representation before the respondent no.4 for payment of all the retiral benefits after excluding Rs.54,600/ -. On 10.7.2013 this Court passed following orders: - "Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, who was posted as an Assistant Development Officer, reached his age of superannuation on 31.08.1997. He preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of his post retiral benefits. At the time of moving of this Court, on 14.11.2003 this Court has issued certain directions, which read as under: ".... In view of these circumstances it is directed that respondent no. 3 will take a decision within two months of the date of production of certified copy of this order before him, after giving show cause notice regarding pay and allowances of suspension period. If it is further directed that either respondent no. 3 will issue a direction after making payment of dues of post retirement benefit after deducting there from a sum of Rs.54600/ - within the same period of two months or he will pass a reasoned order why this is not being done. The decision so taken on both the issues will be annexed to the counter affidavit to be filed in this case within three weeks, after the 2 months period." Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid order of this Court has not been complied with and no counter affidavit has been filed till date. Pending consideration of this petition, the petitioner unfortunately died on 25.02.2010. Heirs and legal representatives of the petitioner have filed a substitution application, which has been allowed and the heirs and legal representatives of the petitioner have been impleaded as petitioners in the writ petition. It is regrettable that order of this Court dated 14.11.2003 has not been complied with nor any counter affidavit has been filed. It is stated that in the disciplinary proceeding, which was pending against the petitioner, he has been exonerated vide order dated 15.02.2003 except some deduction of amount, which is mentioned in the order itself. In the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 AIR(SC) 356, and Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 9 SCC 687, which have consistently been followed by the Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions, an interim mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 2 to make payment of post retiral benefits and other dues of the petitioner (Late Bihari Lal) to his heirs and legal representatives along with 9% interest on the delayed payment within two months from this date or show cause within the same period. List immediately thereafter." ;